#8 Because words matter
These days we have been witnessing the widespread use of expressions such as "social distancing", "respiratory etiquette", "social isolation", or "sanitary fence", which quickly spread from official speeches to the media and from them to everyday conversations.
If it is certain that expressions such as these first are strange, it is certain that soon after they will get stuck. And at a time when concern for public health is an absolute priority, it would seem that consideration of the language used to talk about this pandemic and its implications is a luxury for which there is no time left.
But what effect can language have on the way we think about reality and then act on it?
The first observation is that these expressions are easy to memorise because of their structure (a name, an adjective), which has associated a certain rhythm. Moreover, they are generalisations in which many singular actions fit, and which evoke them when used: respiratory etiquette synthesises many behaviours, such as washing your hands frequently, sneezing at your forearm or wearing a mask. All these actions are immediately present when the generic term is used. This is therefore an efficient designation.
However, a close look reveals that many of the expressions we have become used to in this pandemic are inherently negative. It is not always clear where they come from in the public health vocabulary. And sometimes they are exchanged without consequence for words or expressions that appear to be close, but of very different origin.
Take the example of "social distancing". The term comes from the field of public health and refers to a measure to control contact between people in order to prevent the spread of an infection or virus: keeping people at a distance from each other is a way of limiting transmission. However, the term is not so neutral after all, or the WHO would not have had the need to replace it with 'physical distancing'. The question is how this expression is understood by the public. Social distancing is intended only to be distancing but it can evoke detachment, and the difference is measured by people's mental well-being and the social harmony of the whole. Naturally we all react to this sudden measure by increasing communication exponentially, greatly enhanced by new technologies. Never has it communicated so much - by Skype, telephone, e-mail, social networks and even through the window - as in times of pandemic. But if people's behaviour has adjusted to the need to distance themselves, keeping their distance but ensuring socialisation, where is the problem?
The problem may lie in the overall understanding of the situation, in the "zooming out" of one's life for the whole of society. And in the capacity that expressions such as "social distancing" have to evoke meanings that, not their own, are close. Between "social distancing" and "social distance" there is a slight but decisive difference. A quick Google search shows how they are sometimes used as synonyms, in news and even in official texts. This harmless exchange can have harmful consequences. The expression "social distance" (not " distancing") has been used since the 1920s in sociology to designate the degrees of understanding and intimacy in personal and social relationships, particularly in the context of inter-ethnic relations. In other words, the expression designates the degree of contact or distance between social groups, which come together in institutionalised contexts, such as work environments or services, but remain mutually alienated in other circumstances. "Social' here does not have the meaning of socialising, contacting or even conviviality, but points to more or less rigid structures of belonging and exclusion of groups.
It is true that we will not keep the origin of the term in mind, but looking at the growing debate on the inequality of opportunities in access to distance education or teleworking, the inevitable crisis that is coming and who else is going to lose with it, the expression "social distance" instead of "social distancing" can have an ominous outline. "Social" also fortunately points to meanings such as 'responsibility' and 'solidarity', which are arguments widely used to justify drastic measures implemented by governments all over the world.
Why then do words have this power? Words act as a frame, shaping and framing reality. When we choose a word to speak of a reality that we do not yet understand, we leave aside other words that could also refer to it. And we evoke senses, more conscious or more subliminal, but which are present whenever we use them, conditioning more permanently the way we think about that reality. A word does not exist in isolation.
It is enough to look at the way in which French President Emanuel Macron referred to this pandemic as a war back in March to see easily what is at stake: the legitimisation of restrictive measures such as defence measures and attacks on an identified enemy. This association justifies expressions such as 'fighting the virus', being 'on the front line' or 'winning' the pandemic. But it can have the perverse effect of forgetting or mitigating scenarios like those in Yemen or Syria, where the response is slow and certainly not 'stay home'.
The emergency is of public health, but how we decide to talk about it today can influence how we manage its consequences in the future. What we are experiencing is a pandemic and solving this problem is in everyone's hands: physically distancing ourselves from others, but maintaining and even increasing socialisation. And without forgetting that distance is spatial, but responsibility is social.
Ana Margarida Abrantes,
Coordinator of the Degree in Applied Foreign Languages,
Professor in the Psychology Degree,
Member of the Direction of FCH